Mrs.Nusrat Shazia, vs The Income Tax Officer Ward 141,

Also reported in

This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in the following 3 cases.

Mr. Kishan Kumar Thotakura vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

Smt Prameela Pasumarthi vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Spartek Ceramics India Limited vs The Additional Joint Deputy Assistant ...

Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved

These writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging orders passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for various assessment years, primarily for Assessment Year 2016-17. The petitioners sought writs of mandamus or other appropriate writs declaring the impugned orders and notices as arbitrary, illegal, bad in law, void ab initio, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India and Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The petitions were filed by various individuals, including agriculturists and housewives from different districts of Andhra Pradesh, challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by Income Tax Officers and Deputy Commissioners of Income Tax at various stations. The respondents in the respective petitions included Income Tax Officers at ward level and the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad.

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, constituted by a Division Bench of G. Narendar J and Hiranmayee Mandava J, took up the batch of writ petitions for consideration together on account of the common questions of law and fact involved.

Catchwords: Income Tax · Reassessment · Section 148A(d) · Section 148 · Notice · Writ of Mandamus · Article 226 · Natural Justice · Article 14 · Article 19(1)(g) · Article 265 · Section 145A · Income Tax Act 1961 · Void ab initio